I wrote a post not long ago and barely got a response (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2223). I'm not going to go around steam chats asking people to leave comments on the forum... but I AM very curious to hear the alleged opinions out there, not only for the sake of balancing bk but working on my own personal game designs. The only thing I beg of you all is to leave opinions and explanations so that I can learn and incorporate in my own work.

Full Poll Question (because the question is too long):Does a difference in Specialized vs. Well-Rounded doctrine design cause balance issues? And if so, should a game have all specialized or all well-rounded doctrines?

I think it should stay as it is just Change some doctrine tree "way's" like some of def, are completly bs. Some of ra aswell.

Edit: Almost forgotten re-design every doctrine, will cause perhaps to an big unbalance. or even worse shit and it would take year's comparing all just to specialzie axis too. i think as said it should stay as it is just some change's

SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PECyberdyneModel101: you're unstoppable

Wait what? 1. How are they illogical? What are you defining is logical/illogical?2. How is yours any more logical? (How do you have victor target before you even have howitzers to even use victor target for...? I literally can't tell if you've just made a typo mistake or trolling)

Post edit edit:Okay I get what you mean with your tankhunter-arty example.

That was an cheap example of what i mean though. it could be also like Howitzer-210-grille/Stupa. sadly i don't know the all the tech trees of Royal arty so well, alot should be changed i hope for warhawk to Show up he know what i mean and have better examples

SunZiom: but true is you`re only one man which i know who really know how play PECyberdyneModel101: you're unstoppable

Personally i did like it to have docs that are at least so rounded that they can handle various situations by their own. However, right now i think that having more specialized docs makes balance easier and enforce the gameplay. But even if specialized the docs could or should be able to deal with various situations. A doc should have one "core" in what it does (focus on armor or inf) but also some supportive tools without breaking the specialization rules. For example for an armor focused doctrine that would mean that it would be able to field various armored units that are used differently instead adding lets say hwoitzers or elite inf squads. Instead there would be some support arty (like the tank commander arty strike or maultier in BK doc or calli) and/or support inf. The TH doc can be a good example of being focused on armor that destroys enemie armor but due to Hotchkiss and the factional infantry support capabilties able to deal with changing situations without suddenly becoming a pure arty doc.

As for now i would say that docs working pretty much like that (again, eg RAF). If the new def doc is introduced the way kronoz suggested (with exception of stupa) i then would say that the only doc that needs a new concept would be terror doctrine being focused on something the other WM docs arent. Luftwaffe might also be a bit overversatile but without arty support it is counterable at least by getting AA units and some powerfull AT stuff.

But what would also be important is that the factions would also have a certain "face". Right now only Brits have it. PE is actually supposed to be mobile and work better in conjunction with vehicles. In BK its more or less "additional WM docs". US also lacks a certain face. While being supposed to be mobile and to flank the enemies (air drops, vehicle caps, off map abilties for momentum) it absolutely lacks mobile artillery, being even the worst in this regard of all factions while it is a cruical ability when a faction is about mobility. Meanwhile, while Brits is rather supposed to go forward step by step and having lots of basic emplacments, it absolutely beats US when it comes to mobile arty (cromwell as speedy arty, priests, 75 mm HT). In fact, CW uses lots of stuff that got actually deployed only by US (eg priest, brits used the bishop SPG with 25 pdr).

Well. Specialized in one thing and having a secondary support (armor+ combat engis, AB ranger with light arty such as the 75 mm).Or if specialized on armor, it then would then contain special vehicle/tanks for dealing with situations.For example there is a strong defense: Oh i go for KT to bounce the shit off. And not: oh, i use my super powerfull artillery to deal with it bc i am playing an doctrine that is focused on tanks/arty/inf..... it would for example more be like: Focused on rocket arty and all what creates "terror" like area rocket bombing with fearfull sounds, never letting the enemie rest combined with flames. Inf wouldnt be elites but basic inf fighting more "heroic" till death. Meanwhile, no armor except the very basic types of armor (eg stugs).

A doctrine like an armor focused doctrine would much more look like: Oh there is a heavy defense, i get heavy armored tanks to get over it paired with vehicles/tanks that are made for clearing defenses. Arty would then bbe a pure support tool for to gain momentums but nothing you can purely rely on to win. Here, terror can rely on all three things to win: Inf, armor, arty and decide which one to be played supportive.

Depending on how strong the core tool performs, the secondary support branch would be adjusted in its strenght, but never a lone standing branch to win a battle.

examples:Brits are now fine bc they have a faction design (many basic emplacments) and docs have a core and support arm so far (for RA the support arm is basically consisting of 17 pdr equiped tanks).

US lacks faction design. Which would be mobility (and not silly mass prod upgrade for single unit spam shit) in the first place and a lot of units being core units (this is the actual mass prod, less units but available for all docs for good cost) with less doctrinal specific units overall. Jumbos armor needs a buff, all moved to armor doc while support branch (combat engis and small arty abilties) would make up a small portion. AB is fine and inf needs mobile 105 arty, not a jumbo.

gotcha... matter of definition. I consider what you say still as "well-rounded" else how would you ever do doctrines if it is not implied a particular doctrine has a particular leaning towards. Plus in my last post, I defined doctrine design based on capability not composition. You say well-rounded base on capability.

With this; either you have a doc's role with DEF/SUP Elements; SUP/OFF Elements... BUT NO DEF/OFF.

So, by taking this 2 aspects you can make the decition regarding the question about "Specialized vs. Well-Rounded";

If the gameplay is meant to be based on TEAM-PLAY (NOT a 1v1 match), then, a Specialized aproach is better... but as you said in a post using the "Rock, Paper and Scissors" metaphor; What happen when there's a "Doctrine Hole" or a "+1 element" in a 4v4 match? It's hard to compensate. But take this 2 points;

Adding the PE docs and their respective Doc's, you get some combos like:

3 Players: 2 DEF/SUP and 1 SUP/OFF

>Def Doctrine; Good with Emplacement but Limited Artillery Response.>SE Doctrine; You don't get the Emplacement abundance of DEF; but you have the Artillery Response and Sector Denial.>BK Doctrine; You get those Medium Tanks and Elite Infantry the other docs lack.

I know this is over-simplified, but I think you get the idea behind;

Clear Orientation for the Doctrine.In what Branch is stronger.Harmony between WM/PE and US/CW.Encourage TEAM-PLAY.

I agree with Warhawks in the matter of making the units more durable instead of more of a spam thing. The topic is worth a reading;

And back to my point in the BK and Terror "time";

Instead of a "Mass Production" unlock; a Vet1 might help BK doc in Late game; sure, it can't go frontal attack versus Pershings and Jacksons but with the mobility of a Medium Tank, all goes down to flanking tactics and waiting for the oportunity to attack, supporting the Terror's Heavy Cats.

I repeat myself, I know this is a lot of work; Revising all doctrines to fit either way of "Specialized vs. Well-Rounded" design is going to take time.

But my points are:

Define the ROLE of the Doctrine; Don't make it a Jack-of-all-trades. If it's Defensive; No assault guns, no heavy tanks, and so on...

Maybe 2-3 BRANCHES to excels in (maybe 4); 2 for the 1st ROLE; and 1-2 for the SUPP ROLE.

Changing "Mass Production" for a "VET UP" unlock; that way the ROLE of the Doctrine is worth more; The BRANCH is more durable. Thus, able to survive for a longer time, gain Vet, and helping in Late Game. Encouraging TEAM PLAY.

1. The jack of all trade WM docs. They really need a core and support (max 1-2 depending on how powerfull its core already is). Thats why i love Kronoz idea for def doc so much.

2. US has stuff but brits can always do better in each of the branches. Simply bc they dont have that fucked up "single unit mass prod" that keeps players throwing trash (not that the other stuff isnt trash either, just more expensive trash) at whatever comes. And that leads to many many frustrating moments for the guy who plays the doc but also for the general aspect of teamply. And as you said, trash mass production never keeps you in game on the long term and it doesnt increase the survivability at all (quite the opposite effect: Germans and CW stay often longer in the game once pushed back as the trash spamming US that once beaten back collapse quickly under the pressure of quality units.

Dont get me wrong about mass prod options in general. But it would then be more some sort of faction design feature rather than limited to a single doc and even worse; a single unit. In this regard, US works as "quantity faction" in vcoh better even without any mass production and de facto more expensive units ( a sherman there cost more than a tank IV. Why not?)The way how US can drop cost for vehicles is much more viable and usefull as a faction feature; in this case usefull vehicle usage throughout the entire game unlike other factions usually do.

3. Faction designs: Next to the doctrines there should also be a general focus on what a faction is supposed to do. A armored focused doctrine for US would be clearly different to axis and again to CW. This is either just partly achieved or the intended design doesnt work out. And here is also some nonsense. While axis have the armor to bounce pretty much everything except an SP, they also contain a lot more arty in the docs that also have the biggest tanks. Meanwhile the US as faction is or should be focused more on mobility and long term numerical advantage paired with tactical support, but this is largely not possible bc either it lacks the quick tactical support options or we have failed to meet the middle between quantity and quality/tactical support. At the same time they contain a single unit that can, as only allied unit, go one on one on the heaviest axis armor and is most likely the winner of the one on one engagments.

PE is another thing: Actually supposed to use inf in conjunction with vehicles, it rarley does so. Its more like starting with inf -> plus going to armor/arty for the long term. Or, starting with vehicles only-> Swap to typicall inf/armor/arty. I mean honestly, it must have been ages ago that i´ve ever seen a PE carrier Halftrack together with infantry. So its basically WH, just that doctrines are better focused (core+ support) and units cost more upkeep.

In this matter, ive been also testing stuff privately that actually worked out well in some tests. If you want to know what exactly i did, you can ask me. But i dont want to throw arround with stuff nobody would ever care to consider it as even thinkable.

"A difference does cause balance issues, all should be specialized" And then there are the doctriens that specialized in being all-rounder. BK does not support being non-doctrinal, my evidence being the fact that m16 and 17pounder emplacemtns both were removed from non-doctrin.

I would compare this game as hearthstone. You have classes, and then you have different decks in each class. for example Armour doctrine has 3 different decks, Light vehicles rush, Sherman spam, and pershing spam. But since you're extremly limited in neutral cards (Non-doctrine units and abilities) I would say no matter what you do, every doctrine is specialized, even if their specilization is being good at everything. This is not something we can avoid no matter what.I would say the problem is a bit more fundamental than doctrine designs. Since in theory every doctrin should work because you can't have an unspecialized doctrines.

I'm pretty bad at conveying what I mean. But I think the whole doctrine system is stupid.

Well, i got what you mean red. At least i think so. Being all rounder is also a specialization.

That neutral card thing, well i would say that this should be a faction design feature. For example WH. Its vehicle and actually tank pool depends highly on the doc (esspecially vehicle branch). That means a WH faction feature could be to have in total more different units, but more based on doctrines. Basically we could make it that everything except HMG, mortar, sniper, grens and volks are doctrinal. A few units like stugs can be shared among two docs (or maybe all three in case kronoz def doc is coming). The doctrines then would be again focused on something (Armor, medium and super heavy in BK doc, rocket arty, off map rocket arty, stupa/sturmtiger and heroic fighting basic inf in Terror doc, defensive structures and arty/cheap inf in def doc.

Others like US would generally have less different unit types sharing esspecially vehicles among all docs. Non of them top class but in return not really expensive. Same for shermans and TD´s. Each doc would then add a handfull specialized units (better armored and armed tanks for armor, air droppable inf for AB, elite inf squads and boosted basic inf and some defenses).

PE would have generally a large basic pool of very good basic inf and vehicles while tanks and high tier stuff is very doctrine depending. Thats existing just isnt working so well (vehicle/inf combined warefare)

Brits have a large basic pool of emplacments and armor (AA tanks, 17 pdr tanks, fast tanks) and then boosting one aspect extremely (inf/air, armor, arty) adding very specific units to each branch.

So your non doctrinal card thing would be more a kind of faction design feature.

specializing in all around is what kills the game design and why I wrote. It's why terror, raf, and luft are so popular but armor and def are not (and why I continue to disagree on the rework proposal).

So... here's just an idea I've been tossing around for my mod to be used as an idea example.

I'm making my new mod based off platoon sized games. In the beginning of the game you choose a platoon, call in a platoon leader who represents you. The different platoon types are like: rifle platoon, panzergrenadier platoon, armor platoon, volksgrenadier platoon, etc. In a rifle platoon you get only infantry but with a large variety of infantry to handle many situations. In an armor platoon you get mostly only armor but a large variety to handle many situations.In addition though, you get a battalion support call in to help balance out the platoon, something like artillery support or tank destroyer support, which will only comprise of maybe 20% of your force at most with very limited capability. So it is like your original post here Warhawks.

This thread and its conclusions are completely ridiculous. Doctrines are CoH's way of having more "civilizations" within the limitations of a WW2 setting. If you think removing doctrines would be a good idea, then you should also think that it would be good for games like Age of Empires 2 to consolidate its "civilizations" into 4 generic ones: Western Europe, Central Europe, Arabs, East Asian. It would not solve a thing.

What really matters is the number and quality of options for favorable resource exchange at each point in the game.

kwok wrote:specializing in all around is what kills the game design and why I wrote. It's why terror, raf, and luft are so popular but armor and def are not (and why I continue to disagree on the rework proposal).

Most players (the casual players that is) are not thinking on that level. They're popular because they have high quality units that are low management, low risk and greatly amplify their power with veterancy. Moreover, quality units maintain their firepower better as they take losses. Quality infantry with all members at half health take no loss in DPS while a quantity squad with half its members dead loses half of its DPS.

The best part about quality units is that their tactics are simpler and lesser overall micromanagement requirements means you are much less likely to make a mistake. In short, the popular doctrines are user friendly offering units that perform well at resource exchanges while the unpopular doctrines do not.

Definitely not. That was N44 in a nutshell which if I recall correctly was relatively balanced (at least for a mod with so many sub factions) but quantity factions were very much so quantity ( their US armor doctrine had dozens and dozens of Shermans on field).

I don't think anyone said to get rid of doctrines on this thread.I was suggesting more specialized focused doctrines based on themes instead of capability, while all docs have most capability.

Also, I don't agree with your assessment on why terror, bk, luft, and raf are chosen often. If you want power with most dps and durability... tank hunter. Want easy micro and power? SE. Both those docs require a lot less units and micro to be effective BUT they have blaring weaknesses in terms of capability. Luft on the other hand is infantry focused which requires the most micro. But they're saved by the fact they have panthers and nebelwerfers. Take those away and see how much micro luft requires. Same for raf and other CW doctrines.

Def doc isn't chosen probably purely because it doesn't have tigers tbh.... I didn't want to say it but I'm 80% sure that's why. Meanwhile it's probably THE most powerful doc until markr took my drunken ass seriously maybe two patches ago and since then nerfed it to the point where it's actually going to be a difficult doc to play in this next patch. Players tend to lean more towards terror as their safety pick and blitz when they know they are more skilled than their opponent and want to do something a little bit more "cool".

kwok wrote:I was suggesting more specialized focused doctrines based on themes instead of capability, while all docs have most capability.

kwok wrote:I'm making my new mod based off platoon sized games. In the beginning of the game you choose a platoon, call in a platoon leader who represents you. The different platoon types are like: rifle platoon, panzergrenadier platoon, armor platoon, volksgrenadier platoon, etc. In a rifle platoon you get only infantry but with a large variety of infantry to handle many situations. In an armor platoon you get mostly only armor but a large variety to handle many situations.

You described N44 to a tee. How are you going to avoid their (arguable) mistakes?

kwok wrote:But they're saved by the fact they have panthers and nebelwerfers. Take those away and see how much micro luft requires. Same for raf and other CW doctrines.

Compare that level of micro to trying to play Armor and Infantry doctrine with spam tactics purism. It's such a non starter that nobody does it.

A difference in doctrine design does not impact balance. I say no matter what they are designed to be, they should always be balanced. It's just that how it's balanced is the problem.

This thread and its conclusions are completely ridiculous. Doctrines are CoH's way of having more "civilizations" within the limitations of a WW2 setting. If you think removing doctrines would be a good idea, then you should also think that it would be good for games like Age of Empires 2 to consolidate its "civilizations" into 4 generic ones: Western Europe, Central Europe, Arabs, East Asian. It would not solve a thing.

I see a doctrine in bk is more like not being able to research imperial age intil you pick a doctrine. There is no random button. You can't just play the game.

@Warhawks97. I see it more like you have sherman 76 every doctrine can get it. but you still need to choose a doctrine to get them. It's like playing heartsone and having a sherman 76 (Warlock) sherman 76 (Rogue) and sherman 76 (Paladin) and one for all the other classes. But why not just get 1 neutral card sherman 76 to fit them all? You're not unlocking anything special. You're just filling the gaps in your research tree. And I have no idea why I'm whining about it.